Draft Supplemental Agriculture Environmental Impact Statementa123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic...Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978)

United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest

Service

Pacific

Southwest

Region

R5-MB-250

February 2013

Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Southern California National Forests Land Management Plan Amendment

Angeles National Forest Cleveland National Forest Los Padres National Forest San Bernardino National Forest

Kern, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Diego, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, San Bernardino, and Ventura Counties, California

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Draft Supplemental Southern California National Forests Environmental Impact Statement Land Management Plan Amendment

i

February 2013

Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Southern California National Forests Land Management Plan Amendment

Kern, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Diego, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, San Bernardino, and Ventura Counties, California

Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service

Cooperating Agencies: State of California Natural Resources Agency US Fish and Wildlife Service US National Marine Fisheries Service US Environmental Protection Agency Orange County Fire Authority Ventura County Responsible Official: Randy Moore, Regional Forester 1323 Club Drive, Vallejo CA 94592 For Information Contact: Bob Hawkins, Project Manager [email protected]

Abstract: This supplemental statement describes three alternative land use zone allocations for 35 inventoried roadless areas, along with three alternative monitoring strategies. Proposed alternatives would apply more restrictive land use zones and increase recommended wilderness allocations. In addition, new monitoring protocols are proposed. Reviewers should provide the Forest Service with their comments during the review period of the supplemental draft environmental impact statement. This will enable the Forest Service to analyze and respond to the comments at one time and to use information acquired in the preparation of the final environmental impact statement, thus avoiding undue delay in the decision making process. Reviewers have an obligation to structure their participation in the National Environmental Policy Act process so that it is meaningful and alerts the agency to the reviewers’ position and contentions. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978). Environmental objections that could have been raised at the draft stage may be waived if not raised until after completion of the final environmental impact statement. City of Angoon v. Hodel (9th Circuit, l986) and Wisconsin Heritages, Inc. v. Harris, 490 F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980). Comments on the draft supplemental environmental impact statement should be specific and should address the adequacy of the statement and the merits of the alternatives discussed (40 CFR 1503.3).

Send Comments to: William Metz, Forest Supervisor Cleveland National Forest Service 10845 Rancho Bernardo Road, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92127-2107 Web: http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/fs-usda- pop.php?project=35130 Email: [email protected] Date Comments Must Be Received: May 16, 2013


ii

February 2013

SUMMARY The four southern California national forests propose to amend the Land Management Plans (LMPs) as they relate to roadless area management and to monitoring. This proposed LMP amendment is a result of the Settlement Agreement approved January 3, 2011 for California Resources Agency, et al vs. United States Department of Agriculture, and Center for Biological Diversity, et al vs. United States Department of Agriculture. The Regional Forester approved revised LMPs for the four forests in 2006. The LMPs allocated lands within Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) to various Land Use Zones based on wilderness evaluations that were completed as part of the environmental review. The settlement agreement was accepted as the remedy for the subject lawsuit associated with the revised plans.

Scoping began with the publication of the Notice of Intent on April 27, 2012. Scoping concluded on June 11, 2012. The four forests held nine public meetings with over 250 people attending. Over 10,000 comments were received during scoping. The proposed action identified 80,000 acres of Recommended Wilderness in four new recommended wilderness areas. The proposed action also included approximately 300,000 acres of proposed Back Country Non-Motorized areas on the Los Padres National Forest. Existing motorized roads and trails were maintained by maintaining road and trail corridors within the proposed non-motorized areas. An alternative monitoring strategy based on the current strategy was also proposed. Scoping identified a wide range of issues related to resource management, access, commodities, recreation, wildfire, and wilderness designation. These issues led the agency to develop alternatives to the proposed action including:

Alternative 3 – Recommended Wilderness Emphasis – this alternative allocates a larger share of the IRAs to the recommended wilderness land use zone.

Alternative C – Extensive Monitoring – this alternative proposes more extensive monitoring, including the use of a sampling approach for baseline surveys.

The effects analysis concludes that allocating more of the study area to restrictive land use zones would benefit resources such as watershed, wildlife, and dispersed recreation by limiting future activities. The suitable area available for development of roads, developed recreation, special uses, and energy developments would decrease. No change is expected for grazing. Management for the reduction of hazardous fuels would likely shift from mechanized treatments to less intensive treatments, particularly in recommended wilderness areas. There would be no effects on fire suppression, law enforcement or other emergency response for the proposed action, and limited effects under Alternative 3 related to reduced road access.


iii

February 2013

The proposed monitoring strategy is within the agency budget and would meet the agency requirements. The extensive monitoring alternative exceeds agency requirements and current budget levels and can only be implemented if public services are reduced. Based upon the effects of the alternatives, the responsible official will decide if the plans should be amended, and if so what land use allocations and monitoring strategies will be applied.


iv

February 2013

Table of Contents SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................... ii Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action ....................................................................... 1

Document Structure................................................................................................................ 1

Background ............................................................................................................................ 2

Purpose and Need for Action .................................................................................................. 3

Proposed Action ..................................................................................................................... 3

Decision Framework .............................................................................................................. 4

Public Involvement ................................................................................................................ 4

Issues ..................................................................................................................................... 5

Lead and Cooperating Agencies ............................................................................................11

Other Permits or Approvals ...................................................................................................12

Other Related Efforts.............................................................................................................12

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the proposed action ................................................... 13 Introduction ..........................................................................................................................13

Alternatives Considered in Detail ..........................................................................................13

Land Use Zone Allocations ................................................................................... 14 Monitoring and Evaluation Requirements .............................................................. 16

Agency Preferred Alternative ................................................................................ 17 Features Common to All Alternatives .................................................................... 17

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study .................................................18

Comparison of Alternatives ...................................................................................................20

Chapter 3. Affected Environment ................................................................................... 31 Natural Resources Environment ............................................................................................38

Biological Resources ............................................................................................. 38 Vegetation Conditions ........................................................................................... 38

Wildlife ................................................................................................................. 42 Botanical Resources .............................................................................................. 53

Invasive Non-native Species .................................................................................. 61 Watershed ............................................................................................................. 72

Air ......................................................................................................................... 78 Special Interest Areas ............................................................................................ 79

Social and Economic Environment ........................................................................................79


v

February 2013

Heritage Resources ................................................................................................ 79 Tribal and Native American Interests ..................................................................... 81

Recreation ............................................................................................................. 84 Wilderness ............................................................................................................. 90

Wild and Scenic Rivers .......................................................................................... 91 Landscape Management ......................................................................................... 93

Law Enforcement .................................................................................................. 97 Facility Operations and Maintenance ..................................................................................... 99

Roads .................................................................................................................... 99 Non-Motorized Trails .......................................................................................... 101

Motorized Trails .................................................................................................. 102 Road and Trail Maintenance ................................................................................ 103

Commodity and Commercial Uses ...................................................................................... 103

Livestock Grazing................................................................................................ 103 Minerals and Energy ............................................................................................ 106

Non-Recreation Special Uses ............................................................................... 109 Lands and Real Estate Management Activities .................................................................... 111

Private Lands ....................................................................................................... 111 Wildland Fire and Community Protection ........................................................................... 112

Fire History ......................................................................................................... 112

Wildland/Urban Interface .................................................................................... 113 Suppression Effectiveness and Firefighter Access ................................................ 113

National Forest Management ............................................................................................... 114

Other Plans ......................................................................................................................... 115

Federal Plans ....................................................................................................... 115 State Plans ........................................................................................................... 116

County Plans ....................................................................................................... 116 Monitoring .......................................................................................................................... 119

Part 1 Monitoring................................................................................................. 120

Part 2 Monitoring................................................................................................. 124 Part 3 Monitoring................................................................................................. 125

Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences ...................................................................... 127 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 127


vi

February 2013

Analysis assumptions .......................................................................................................... 137

Natural Resources Environment .......................................................................................... 139

Biological Resources ........................................................................................... 139

Vegetation Conditions ......................................................................................... 139 Wildlife ............................................................................................................... 140

Botanical Resources ............................................................................................ 172 Invasive Non-native Species ................................................................................ 199

Watershed ........................................................................................................... 203 Air ....................................................................................................................... 209

Special Interest Areas .......................................................................................... 210 Social and Economic Environment ...................................................................................... 212

Heritage Resources .............................................................................................. 212 Tribal and Native American Interests ................................................................... 215

Recreation ........................................................................................................... 218 Wild and Scenic Rivers ....................................................................................... 225

Wilderness........................................................................................................... 228 Landscape Management ...................................................................................... 231

Law Enforcement ................................................................................................ 234 Economics ........................................................................................................... 236

Facility Operations and Maintenance ................................................................................... 237

Roads and Trails .................................................................................................. 237 Road and Trail Maintenance ................................................................................ 243

Commodity and Commercial Uses ...................................................................................... 244

Livestock Grazing ............................................................................................... 244

Minerals .............................................................................................................. 247 Non-Recreation Special Uses............................................................................... 256

Lands and Real Estate Management Activities ..................................................................... 261

Private Lands ....................................................................................................... 261 Wildland Fire and Community Protection ............................................................................ 262

Fire Suppression effectiveness in IRAs, including WUI ....................................... 262 Fuels Management .............................................................................................. 263

Impact on Local Fire Cooperators ........................................................................ 265 Other Plans ......................................................................................................................... 266


vii

February 2013

Federal Plans ....................................................................................................... 266 State Plans ........................................................................................................... 266

County Plans ....................................................................................................... 267 Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity ....................................................................... 267

Economic Efficiency ........................................................................................................... 268

Unavoidable Adverse Effects .............................................................................................. 268

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources .................................................... 268

Cumulative Effects.............................................................................................................. 269

Vegetation ........................................................................................................... 271 Wildlife ............................................................................................................... 271

Botanical Resources............................................................................................. 272 Invasive Non-native Species ................................................................................ 273

Watershed ............................................................................................................ 274 Air ....................................................................................................................... 274

Heritage Resources .............................................................................................. 275 Tribal and Native American Interests ................................................................... 275

Recreation ........................................................................................................... 276 Wilderness ........................................................................................................... 277

Landscape Management ....................................................................................... 283 Law Enforcement ................................................................................................ 283

Roads and Trails .................................................................................................. 283 Livestock Grazing................................................................................................ 283

Minerals .............................................................................................................. 284 Non-Recreation Special Uses ............................................................................... 284

Private Lands ....................................................................................................... 284 Wildfire ............................................................................................................... 285

Economics ........................................................................................................... 285 Other Required Disclosures ................................................................................................. 285

Monitoring .......................................................................................................................... 285

Economic Efficiency ........................................................................................................... 298

Chapter 5. Consultation and Coordination .................................................................... 300 Preparers and Contributors .................................................................................................. 301

Interdisciplinary Team Members ......................................................................... 301


viii

February 2013

Federal, State, and Local Agencies ...................................................................... 304 Tribes .................................................................................................................. 304

Distribution of the Environmental Impact Statement ............................................................ 304

Opportunity to Comment ..................................................................................................... 305

Informational Meetings ....................................................................................................... 305

References ................................................................................................................... 306 Index ........................................................................................................................... 312 List of Acronyms ......................................................................................................... 314 APPENDICES ............................................................................................................. 315

Appendix 1 – Maps of the Land Use Zone Alternatives ....................................... 315 Appendix 2 – Inventoried Roadless Area Analyses .............................................. 315

Appendix 3 – Monitoring Alternatives ................................................................. 315

List of Tables

Table 1. Summary of Public Open House Meetings ............................................................................................. 5 Table 2. Summary of Issues Considered in the Analysis ...................................................................................... 5 Table 3. Summary of Issues not Considered in the Analysis ................................................................................. 9 Table 4. Summary of LUZ Allocations within the Planning area for each Forest by Alternative ........................... 22 Table 5. Comparison of the Land Use Zone alternatives based on the issues. ....................................................... 23 Table 6. Comparison of Monitoring Alternatives .............................................................................................. 30 Table 7. IRAs within the Four Southern California National Forests .................................................................. 31 Table 8. Wildlife Habitat Relationship vegetation types used in the analysis ........................................................ 39 Table 9. MIS tree species from the LMP .......................................................................................................... 42 Table 10. Acreage of tree MIS in IRAs on each Forest. Black oak and white fir are not presented because they often occur in mixed-species stands........................................................................................................................... 42 Table 11. Summary of Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Candidate Species within IRAs .......................... 45 Table 12. Designated Critical Habitat .............................................................................................................. 47 Table 13. Sensitive Wildlife Species Forest Occurrence ..................................................................................... 48 Table 14. Management Indicator Species (MIS) Forest Occurrence ................................................................... 49 Table 15. Research Natural Areas (RNAs) within Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) ......................................... 50 Table 16. Critical Biological Zones within IRAs................................................................................................ 52 Table 17. Acres of Poa atropurpurea Habitat in the Barker Valley IRA (Cleveland National Forest) ..................... 54 Table 18. Acreages of Mapped Sensitive Plant Occurrences Known Within IRAs ................................................ 55 Table 19. Acreages of Mapped Sensitive Plants in IRAs by Species 1 .................................................................. 58 Table 20. Other Rare Plant Occurrences by Inventoried Roadless Area ............................................................. 60 Table 21. Invasive Non-Native Plants Known to Occur In Inventoried Roadless Areas ........................................ 64 Table 22. Non-Native Animal Occurrences by IRA ........................................................................................... 70 Table 23. Watershed Acreage, Land Ownership and Summary HUC Watershed Condition Ratings (as determined


ix

February 2013

in FY11) by Forest .......................................................................................................................................... 73 Table 24. WCC by IRA and HUC6- Angeles NF ............................................................................................... 74 Table 25. IRA and HUC 6 Watersheds in WCC 1 on the Cleveland NF............................................................... 75 Table 26. WCC per IRA and HUC 6 for non WCC 1 Watershed- Cleveland NF .................................................. 75 Table 27. IRA and HUC 6 Watersheds in WCC 1 on the Los Padres NF ............................................................. 76 Table 28. WCC per IRA and HUC 6 for non WCC 1 Watersheds on the Los Padres NF ...................................... 76 Table 29. WCC by IRA and HUC6- San Bernardino NF ................................................................................... 77 Table 30. Air Basins and associated APCDs within the Planning Area ................................................................ 78 Table 31. SIAs within the Planning Area .......................................................................................................... 79 Table 32. Heritage and Tribal Data for Southern California National Forests ..................................................... 80 Table 33. National Register of Historic Places by Forest .................................................................................... 81 Table 34. Federally Recognized Tribes within the National Forest's Sphere of Influence ...................................... 83 Table 35. Non-Federally Recognized Tribes within the National Forest's Sphere of Influence ............................... 84 Table 36. National Forest Visitation ................................................................................................................. 85 Table 37. Hang Gliding Take-off Locations in Southern California National Forest IRAs .................................... 88 Table 38. Southern California National Forest Wilderness Designated since 2005 ................................................ 90 Table 39. Designated Wilderness Visits ............................................................................................................ 91 Table 40. Landscape Attractiveness- Acres and Percent of Total Acres by Class and Forest ................................. 94 Table 41. Landscape Attractiveness within the IRAs- Acres and Percent of Total Acres, by Class and Forest ........ 94 Table 42. Key Places Valued for Scenic Quality ................................................................................................ 95 Table 43. Key Places within the IRAs Valued for Scenic Quality ........................................................................ 96 Table 44. Scenic Integrity Objectives within the IRAs- Acres and Percent of Total by Scenery Integrity Objective (SIO) and Forest ............................................................................................................................................. 97 Table 45. Miles of Road within the Planning Area........................................................................................... 100 Table 46. Miles of Unauthorized Routes within the Planning Area by Forest ..................................................... 101 Table 47. Miles of Non-Motorized Trail within the Planning Area by Forest ..................................................... 101 Table 48. Trail Type and Mileage on the Los Padres NF .................................................................................. 102 Table 49. Acres within Livestock Grazing Areas by Forest .............................................................................. 104 Table 50. Number of Grazing Areas by Forest ................................................................................................ 104 Table 51. IRAs with Livestock Grazing Areas ................................................................................................ 104 Table 52. Livestock Grazing Areas by IRA and Livestock Grazing within IRAs ................................................ 105 Table 53. Areas with more than four Fires over ten Acres* .............................................................................. 112 Table 54. Summary of Miles of Fuel Breaks within the Planning area ............................................................... 114 Table 55. Appropriated Funding - FY 2006-2013 ............................................................................................ 115 Table 56. Acres of IRAs by County and Forest ............................................................................................... 117 Table 57. Part 1 Monitoring Summary........................................................................................................... 121 Table 58. Part 2 Monitoring Summary........................................................................................................... 124 Table 59. Part 3 Monitoring Summary........................................................................................................... 125 Table 60. Suitable Uses- Resource Management ............................................................................................. 129


x

February 2013

Table 61. Suitable Uses- Public Use and Enjoyment ........................................................................................ 130 Table 62. Suitable Uses- Commodity and Commercial Uses ............................................................................. 132 Table 63. Suitable Uses Fire and Fuels Management- LPNF ............................................................................ 134 Table 64. Land Use Allocation by Alternative ................................................................................................. 138 Table 65. Comparison of the alternatives for vegetation effects. ....................................................................... 139 Table 66. Critical Habitat acres by Alternative, Species, and Land Use Zone .................................................... 143 Table 67. Comparison of Alternative Effects on Wildlife Species and Habitats .................................................. 146 Table 68. R5 Sensitive Wildlife Species Occurrence ........................................................................................ 160 Table 69. Acreages of Mapped Sensitive Plant Occurrences Known Within IRAs .............................................. 173 Table 70. Acreages of Mapped Sensitive Plants in IRAs by Species 1 ................................................................ 178 Table 71. Acres of Poa atropurpurea Habitat in the Barker Valley IRA (Cleveland National Forest) ................... 187 Table 72. Acres of Chlorogalum purpureum var. reductum Habitat in the Black Mountain IRA........................... 188 Table 73. Summary of Effects of Each Alternative on T & E Plant Species and Critical Habitat ......................... 189 Table 74. Summary of Determinations of Effects for Threatened and Endangered Species ................................. 192 Table 75. Summary of Mapped Sensitive Plant Occurrence Acres by LUZ 1 .................................................... 194 Table 76. Summary of Effects Determinations for Sensitive Species in the Analysis Area ................................... 195 Table 77. Acreages of Mapped Invasive Plant Occurrences by Land Use Zone and Inventoried Roadless Areas... 200 Table 78. Effects of All Alternatives on Non-Native Species Introduction, Spread, and Management Actions....... 202 Table 79. WCC by IRA and HUC6- Angeles NF ............................................................................................. 205 Table 80. IRA and HUC 6 Watersheds in WCC 1 Under all Alternatives on the Cleveland NF ........................... 206 Table 81. WCC per IRA and HUC 6 for non WCC 1 Watershed- Cleveland NF ................................................ 206 Table 82. IRA and HUC 6 Watersheds in WCC 1 Under all Alternatives- on the Los Padres NF ........................ 207 Table 83. WCC per IRA and HUC 6 for non WCC 1 Watersheds on the Los Padres NF .................................... 207 Table 84. WCC by IRA and HUC6- San Bernardino NF ................................................................................. 209 Table 85. Alternative 1 LUZ allocations for the SIAs within the planning area. ................................................. 211 Table 86. Alternative 2 LUZ allocations for the SIAs within the planning area. ................................................. 211 Table 87. Alternative 3 LUZ allocations for the SIAs within the planning area. ................................................. 212 Table 88. Recreational Opportunity Spectrum ............................................................................................... 219 Table 89. Mix of BCNM and RW within the planning area for Alternative 1 ..................................................... 219 Table 90. Mix of BCNM and RW within the planning area for Alternative 2 ..................................................... 220 Table 91. Mix of BCNM and RW within the planning area for Alternative 3 ..................................................... 220 Table 92. Acres of Designated Wild and Scenic Rivers .................................................................................... 226 Table 93. Acres of Eligible and Suitable Wild and Scenic Rivers ...................................................................... 227 Table 94. RW percentage within the planning area by alternative .................................................................... 229 Table 95. Scenic Integrity Objective Mapping Rules Based on LUZ and ROS ................................................... 232 Table 96. Alternative 1 SIO (acres) in BCNM/RW LUZs within the planning area ............................................ 233 Table 97. Alternative 2 SIO (acres) in BCNM/RW LUZs within the planning area ............................................ 233 Table 98. Alternative 3 SIO (acres) for BCNM/RW LUZs within the planning area ........................................... 234 Table 99. Miles of Existing Road by Forest and LUZ ...................................................................................... 238


xi

February 2013

Table 100. Miles of Existing Trail by Forest and LUZ ..................................................................................... 238 Table 101. Miles of Unauthorized Routes by Forest and LUZ .......................................................................... 239 Table 102. Miles of Existing Roads by Forest and LUZ Under Alternative 2 ..................................................... 239 Table 103. Miles of Existing Trails by Forest and LUZ for Alternative 2 ........................................................... 240 Table 104. Miles of Unauthorized Routes by Forest and LUZ for Alternative 2 ................................................. 241 Table 105. Miles of Existing Road by Forest and LUZ for Alternative 3 ............................................................ 241 Table 106. Miles of Existing Trails by Forest and LUZ for Alternative 3 ........................................................... 242 Table 107. Miles of Unauthorized Routes by Forest and LUZ for Alternative 3 ................................................. 243 Table 108. Total IRA Acreage, Livestock Grazing & Black Mountain Wildhorse Territory Area Suitable Acreage, and Percent Livestock Area in IRAs by Forest ................................................................................................ 245 Table 109. Alternative 1 (No Action) Livestock Grazing Areas and Black Mountain Wildhorse Territory Suitable Acres in IRAs by Forest by Land Use Zones .................................................................................................... 246 Table 110. Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) Livestock Grazing Areas and Black Mountain Wildhorse Territory Suitable Acres in IRAs by Forest by Land Use Zones ....................................................................................... 246 Table 111. Alternative 3 (Recommended Wilderness Emphasis) Livestock Grazing Areas and Black Mountain Wildhorse Territory Suitable Acres in IRAs by Forest by Land Use Zones ........................................................ 247 Table 112. IRAs with no mineral potential ..................................................................................................... 248 Table 113. Acres Suitable for Non-Recreation Special Uses.............................................................................. 261 Table 114. Miles of Fuelbreak by LUZ for Alternative 2 .................................................................................. 264 Table 115. Miles of Fuelbreak by LUZ for Alternative 3 .................................................................................. 265 Table 116. Acres and percent of Planning Area by Forest. ............................................................................... 269 Table 117. Mix of Land Use Zones Aggregated at the Forest Level. .................................................................. 270 Table 118. Mix of LUZs Aggregated for the four forests. ................................................................................. 271 Table 119. Summary of Federal and State Wilderness by County ..................................................................... 280 Table 120. Summary of Recommended Wilderness by Alternative. .................................................................. 281 Table 121. Monitoring No Action - Part 1 Cost/Forest ..................................................................................... 286 Table 122. Monitoring No Action - Part 2 Cost/Forest ..................................................................................... 286 Table 123. Monitoring No Action - Part 3 Cost/Forest ..................................................................................... 287 Table 124. Monitoring Proposed Action - Part 1 Cost/Forest ........................................................................... 290 Table 125. Monitoring Proposed Action - Part 2 Cost/Forest ........................................................................... 290 Table 126. Monitoring Proposed Action - Part 3 Cost/Forest ........................................................................... 291 Table 127. Extensive Monitoring - Part 1 Cost/Forest...................................................................................... 294 Table 128. Extensive Monitoring - Part 2 Cost/Forest...................................................................................... 295 Table 129. Monitoring Proposed Action - Part 3 Cost/Forest ........................................................................... 296 Table 130: Comparison of Cost/Forest by Alternative ...................................................................................... 298 Table 131. IDT members and key contributors ............................................................................................... 301

List of Figures Figure 1. Comparison of the LUZ allocations by Alternative .............................................................................. 21 Figure 2. Overview Map of the Los Padres National Forest (North) .................................................................... 32


xii

February 2013

Figure 3. Overview Map of the Los Padres National Forest (South).................................................................... 33 Figure 4. Overview Map of the Angeles National Forest .................................................................................... 34 Figure 5. Overview Map of the San Bernardino ................................................................................................ 35 Figure 6. Overview Map San Bernardino National Forest (South) and Cleveland National Forest (North)............. 36 Figure 7. Overview Map Cleveland National Forest (South) .............................................................................. 37 Figure 8. RW for Alternative 2 Shown with Existing State and Federal Wilderness. .......................................... 282


1

February 2013

CHAPTER 1. PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION

Document Structure __________________________________ The Forest Service has prepared this Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (Draft SEIS) in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant federal and state laws and regulations. This Environmental Impact Statement discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that would result from the proposed action and alternatives. The document is organized into five chapters: Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action: The chapter includes information on the

history of the project proposal, the purpose of and need for the project, and the agency’s proposal for achieving that purpose and need. This section also details how the Forest Service informed the public of the proposal and how the public responded.

Chapter 2. Alternatives, including the Proposed Action: This chapter provides a more detailed description of the agency’s proposed action as well as alternative methods for achieving the stated purpose. These alternatives were developed based on significant issues raised by the public and other agencies. This discussion also includes a description of Land Management Plan components included in all alternatives. Finally, this section provides a comparison of the alternatives.

Chapter 3. Affected Environment: This chapter describes the affected environment for the proposed action and alternatives. The analysis for the Land Use Zone allocation alternatives is organized by resource area. The analysis for monitoring is discussed separately.

Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences: This chapter describes the environmental effects of implementing the proposed action and alternatives. The analysis for the Land Use Zone allocation alternatives is organized by resource area. The analysis for monitoring is discussed separately.

Chapter 5. Consultation and Coordination: This chapter provides a list of preparers and agencies consulted during the development of the environmental impact statement.

Appendices: The appendices provide more detailed information to support the analyses presented in the environmental impact statement.

Index: The index provides page numbers by document topic. This SEIS supplements the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Revised Land Management Plans, originally published in 2005 and reissued in April 2006. The Notice of Availability for the FEIS was published in the Federal Register on April 21, 2006 (FR Vol 71, No. 77, page 20660). The Final Environmental Impact Statement is referenced throughout this supplement as the “FEIS”. The FEIS and supporting project record, including the Record of Decision for each forest, is available on the web at the project website.

http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/fs-usda-pop.php?project=35130http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/fs-usda-pop.php?project=35130


2

February 2013

Additional documentation, including more detailed analyses of project-area resources, may be found in the project planning record located at the Cleveland National Forest, or online at the project website.

Background _________________________________________ Land Management Plans (LMPs, plans, or forest plans) are required by the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976. They are an integrated document that describes the goals, objectives, and management direction for each component of the National Forest System. The four southern California national forests (also referred to as the four forests) adopted revised Land Management Plans (LMPs) in April 2006. The LMPs consist of three parts: Part 1 is the vision; this part of the plan looks to the future and describes a collective vision or desired condition for the national forests of southern California over time. Part 2 is the forest-specific strategies; this part of the plan can be thought of as "the tools" that will be used to achieve the desired conditions in Part 1. This section includes descriptions of objectives, program emphasis and potential resource management strategies.

Part 3 includes the design criteria. This part of the plan constitutes the "rules" that the Forest Service will follow as various strategies are implemented. The rules include design criteria that consist of pertinent environmental and public land management laws, standards that define the parameters for the activities the Forest Service anticipates, and other guidance (including management guides, manual and handbook direction or other appropriate reference material).

Each part is found in a separate document. Parts 1 and 3 of the forest plans are common to all four southern California national forests. Part 2 is "customized" to accommodate the unique management requirements of each individual national forest. The decision to adopt the plans was challenged in federal court in separate cases filed by the State of California and several environmental organizations (California Resources Agency, et al vs. United States Department of Agriculture, and Center for Biological Diversity, et al vs. United States Department of Agriculture). The cases were consolidated, and on September 29, 2009, District Court Judge Marilyn Hall Patel entered judgment, granting in part and denying in part the parties’ motions for summary judgment. The Court held that the Forest Service’s FEIS for the revised forest plans violated NEPA and the NFMA. On December 15, 2010, the parties finalized a settlement agreement determining the forms of relief. The settlement requires, in part, that:

The Forest Service will prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (“SEIS”) that re-examines forest plan management direction with regard to Inventoried Roadless Areas (“IRAs”) within the Angeles, Cleveland, Los Padres and San Bernardino National Forest (collectively, “four forests”) and analyzes alternative monitoring protocols. The SEIS will include a description of the Forest Service’s efforts to coordinate with the State Plaintiffs regarding the State’s policies for management of roadless areas. At the request of the Environmental Plaintiffs and the People of the State of California, the Forest Service will consider, at a minimum, the areas listed in Attachment A, or portions thereof, for potential re-zoning to the

http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/fs-usda-pop.php?project=35130


3

February 2013

Recommended Wilderness (“RW”) or Back Country Non-Motorized (“BCNM”) land use zones and the SEIS will include as a component of the proposed action, a proposal to rezone these areas, or portions thereof, to the RW or BCNM land use zones. Additional alternatives will also be considered as part of the NEPA process. The Forest Service will use best efforts to complete the SEIS and issue a Record of Decision within twenty-four months of the effective date of the Settlement Agreement.

This Supplemental EIS (SEIS) for the southern California national forests LMP amendment is prepared in response to the settlement agreement requirements. Existing land use zone allocations and management direction for those zones are described in Part 2 of the LMPs for each forest. Existing land use zone allocations are also shown on a series of maps published with Part 2, and available on the web at http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/fs-usda-pop.php?project=35130. Existing monitoring protocols are included in Part 3, Appendix C of the LMPs.

Purpose and Need for Action ___________________________ The purpose of the proposed action is to amend LMP land use zone allocations for select IRAs and to amend LMP monitoring and evaluation protocols. This action is needed to respond to the terms of the Settlement Agreement between the Forest Service, State of California, and other settlement parties. This proposed amendment to the 2006 LMPs is limited in scope and designed to address the terms of the settlement agreement.

Proposed Action ______________________________________ The action proposed by the Forest Service to meet the purpose and need is to modify the existing land use zones in the identified IRAs to include more Back Country Non-Motorized (BCNM) and Recommended Wilderness (RW) areas. A modified monitoring framework is also proposed.

The proposed action would change the Land Use Zone (LUZ) allocation to BCNM on approximately 300,000 acres, and change the LUZ allocation to RW on approximately 80,000 acres. The majority of the additional BCNM allocations are located in IRAs on the Los Padres and San Bernardino National Forests. Additions to the RW allocations are within IRAs on the Angeles and Cleveland National Forests. On the Angeles National Forest, the Fish Canyon and Salt Creek IRAs were combined to create the proposed 40,000 acre Fish Canyon RW area. On the Cleveland National Forest, the proposed 23,000 acre Eagle Peak RW area includes portions of the Eagle Peak, Sill Hill, and No Name IRAs, along with portions of the Cedar Creek and Upper San Diego River undeveloped areas. The 11,000 acre Barker Valley and 5,000 acre Caliente RW areas are also proposed on the Cleveland National Forest. The proposed action monitoring and evaluation requirements are based on the current monitoring framework (Part 3, Appendix C of the Land Management Plans). Revisions include updates to the monitoring requirements for forest health, riparian condition, and biological resource condition. Monitoring indicators were also clarified to reflect current


4

February 2013

inventory methodology in several areas, and an indicator was added to track unclassified (unauthorized) roads and trails. The revision also includes more details on how monitoring would be implemented, and how projects would be selected for monitoring.

Decision Framework __________________________________ Given the purpose and need, the Forest Supervisors and/or Regional Forester review the proposed action, other alternatives, including No Action (Alternative 1/A), and the environmental consequences in order to determine whether the LMPs will be amended as proposed, modified by an alternative, or not at all. If the amendment will result in a significant change in the LMP (as defined by Forest Service Manual 1926.52) the Regional Forester is the deciding officer. If the changes proposed for a forest LMP are not significant, the Forest Supervisor is the deciding official.

The LMP amendment will be developed under the transition provisions of the new Forest Service planning rule found at Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) § 219.17, which provides that plan amendments may be initiated under the provisions of the prior planning regulations (see Federal Register volume 74 number 242 page 67062, December 18, 2009 for more information on the prior planning rule). Under those transition provisions, this plan amendment will be conducted under the 1982 planning rule, however, the pre-decisional administrative review process described under 36 CFR Part 219 Subpart B will apply. The decision framework does not include changes to the other components of the LMPs, such as suitable uses within land use zones, plan standards, or designation of other special areas.

Public Involvement ___________________________________ The Notice of Intent (NOI) was published in the Federal Register on April 27, 2012. The NOI asked for public comment on the proposal from April 27, 2012 to June 11, 2012. In addition, as part of the public involvement process, the agency published legal notices in the newspapers of record for the Pacific Southwest Region and each Forest. Scoping letters were mailed to over 2,500 individuals, groups, agencies, tribes, state and local governments, and elected officials. A project web page was generated through the Forest Service Planning, Appeals, and Litigation System that provided public access to detailed information about the proposed action, and included access to detailed maps and supporting material. Comments were accepted through the project web page, by email, or by mail.

The Forest Service hosted nine public open house meetings throughout the planning area. Detailed maps were available for viewing and Forest Service staff was available to answer questions. Written comments were accepted. Table 1 summarizes the meeting dates and locations as well as public attendance.


5

February 2013

Table 1. Summary of Public Open House Meetings Date Location Host Public Attendance

May 29, 2012 Ventura Los Padres NF 20 May 30, 2012 Arcadia Angeles NF 70 May 31, 2012 San Bernardino San Bernardino NF 17 May 31, 2012 Acton Angeles NF 22 May 31, 2012 Ramona Cleveland NF 39 May 31, 2012 Santa Maria Los Padres NF 8 June 1, 2012 Frazier Park Los Padres NF 40 June 5, 2012 Alpine Cleveland NF 20 June 5, 2012 Corona Cleveland NF 20

Over 250 people attended the meetings. The scoping period ended on June 11, 2012. Over 10,000 comments were received during the scoping period. The majority of comments (9,800) came through email. About 187 comments were submitted through the project web portal. About 50 written comments were received at the public meetings, and around 75 letters were received (some of which duplicated letters received by email). Of these comments, about 7,200 were form letters, 1,800 were expanded form letters (a form letter with expanded text) and close to 500 were unique comment letters or emails. Using the comments from the public, other agencies, and tribes, the interdisciplinary team developed a list of issues to address.

Issues ______________________________________________ In the forest planning context an issue can be a potential factor for determining need for change for a plan; a specific resource concern about a proposed action; a point of contention or disagreement; or a subject or question of widespread public interest about management of the National Forest System. Issues that are relevant to the proposed action were identified and summarized in Table 2. Issues focus the analysis on the important factors that disclose the effects of the proposed action and alternatives. Table 2. Summary of Issues Considered in the Analysis

Natural Resources Environment Issue Indicator used for assessment

Vegetation communities – LMP standards provide general direction for vegetation and habitat management. These standards are applied at the project level. Changes in LUZ allocations influence the types and intensity of projects that may occur in the future. Increasing the area allocated to more restrictive LUZs could improve vegetation condition over time as future projects would be guided by the more restrictive LUZs.

Cover type by LUZ Management Indicator Species

TEPCS species – The IRAs provide habitat to a wide range of Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, Candidate, Sensitive, and Proposed (TEPCS or TES) plant and animal species. LMP standards and consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service and

Plants T&E species occurrence by LUZ T&E critical habitat by LUZ Sensitive species occurrence by LUZ Suitable uses within LUZs


6

February 2013

the National Marine Fisheries Service protect these species and habitat when projects are implemented. Changes in LUZ allocations influence the types and intensity of projects that may occur in the future. Increasing the area allocated to more restrictive LUZs could improve species habitat.

Animals T&E species occurrence by LUZ T&E critical habitat by LUZ Suitable uses within LUZs

Wildlife structures – Access to maintain developed wildlife structures such as water guzzlers may be restricted by changes in LUZ.

Access restriction by LUZ Locations of guzzlers

Invasive plants – Changes in LUZs could influence the spread of invasive plants. Available control methods may vary by LUZ as well.

Miles of system roads and trails Suitable uses within LUZs

Water Quality – Suitable uses allowed under the various LUZs can have an impact on water quality and overall watershed condition.

Watershed Condition Class by LUZ Stream type by LUZ Springs by LUZ

Air Quality – Suitable uses allowed under the various LUZs can have an impact on air quality.

Suitable uses within LUZs

Social and Economic Environment Issue Indicator used for assessment

Heritage Resources – Lands within the IRAs are valued by native American tribes as part of their ancestral lands. The IRAs also have archeological and historic resources within the boundaries. Although these resources are identified and protected during project evaluation, the level of development allowed under the different LUZs can affect the level of risk.

Suitable uses within LUZs

Recreational user access – The allowable access method varies by LUZ. Modifying LUZ allocations can change the type of access, particularly for motorized or mechanized equipment users.

Miles of system roads and trails

Recreation Opportunity – The recreational opportunity objective will change with the change in Land Use Zone allocations.

Recreational Opportunity Spectrum objective (ROS) by LUZ

Hunting participation – Executive Order (EO) 13443 directs federal agencies to facilitate the expansion and enhancement of hunting opportunities. The EO also directs agencies to consider the effect of their actions on trends in hunting participation and to consider the economic and recreation value of hunting. The Federal Lands Hunting, Fishing, and Shooting Sports Roundtable Memorandum of Agreement was developed to facilitate implementation of the EO.


Tourism – National forest recreation generates spending in local communities. Changes in recreational use from reduced motorized or mechanized use or increased hiking could affect local economies.



7

February 2013

Accessibility for Americans with Disabilities – Access to lands may be restricted for those Americans with disabilities if access levels change under the alternatives.


Wild and Scenic Rivers (W&SR) – Two rivers within the IRAs were designated as W&SR by Congress since the LMP was revised in 2006. The LMP also classified several rivers within the IRAs as eligible W&SR. LUZs allocated to these designated or eligible W&SR must be consistent with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act requirements.

LUZs within river corridor

Scenic Integrity – The LMP establishes Scenic Integrity Objectives (SIOs) for all National Forest System lands within the planning area. Areas currently zoned as Recommended Wilderness and all existing wilderness areas have very high SIOs. Adding additional areas of RW could change the SIOs for those areas.

SIOs

Illegal uses – The remote nature of many of the IRAs could make them prime candidates for illegal uses such as marijuana cultivation or game poaching. Public visitation may discourage illegal uses. Reductions in access may increase the amount of illegal activity.

Miles of system and unauthorized roads and trails

Law enforcement and emergency response – Emergency responders (law enforcement, fire, and search and rescue) often rely on motorized equipment to conduct missions in the remote IRAs. Restrictions in access could delay or hinder emergency response.

Miles of system roads and motorized trails

Border security – Illegal narcotics and human trafficking on federal lands along the southwest border threatens national security as well as natural resources. The Border Patrol needs access to federal lands to carry out their homeland security responsibilities. Restricting access to lands could reduce the effectiveness of the Border Patrol actions. This issue applies to IRAs on the Cleveland NF.

Miles of system roads and motorized trails

Implementation cost – The implementation cost will vary between alternatives, and this is particularly true for the monitoring alternatives.

Relative cost of implementation when compared to current funding

Facility Operations and Maintenance Issue Indicator used for assessment

Transportation system planning – The ability to expand the existing transportation system for motorized and mechanized use would be affected by changes in LUZ. Several opportunities for expansion including the San Diego Sea to Sea trail (also known as the Trans-county trail), and

Evaluation of each opportunity by alternative


8

February 2013

Ballinger to Hungry Valley trail would be affected by changes in LUZ. Trail maintenance – The Forest Service could lose some volunteer labor available for trail maintenance if mountain bikes and motorized vehicles were no longer able to use the trails.

Miles of system roads and mechanized trails OHV and mountain bike users time contributed for trail maintenance

Commodity and Commercial Uses Issue Indicator used for assessment

Grazing Permits – Many of the IRAs have grazing permits and those permits authorize motorized access to authorized improvements that could change with changes in the LUZ.

Suitable uses by LUZ Acres of grazing allotments by LUZ Locations of range improvements including roads

Mineral Materials – Allocation of LUZs that limit development could impact the availability of aggregate needed to support construction.

Regionally Significant Aggregate sources within IRAs

Locatable minerals – Allocation of LUZs could affect access to mining claims.

LUZ access restrictions Mining Claim locations

Special Uses – Many of the IRAs have authorized special uses within them or adjacent to the IRA, including communication sites, sediment disposal areas, power lines, gas lines and other miscellaneous uses. The suitability of these uses varies with the LUZ.

Suitable uses by LUZ Designated corridors Locations of Special Uses

Lands (Real Estate) Issue Indicator used for assessment

Private lands – Private lands occur within and adjacent to the IRAs. Development of private lands is guided by county general plans. Access may also be required through the IRAs. Changes in LUZs may not be compatible with access needs or acceptable development levels.

Access roads to private land General Plan Zoning

Wildland Fire and Community Protection Issue Indicator used for assessment

Fire Suppression in IRAs – Changes in LUZ could limit the level of access for fire suppression and the use of motorized and mechanized equipment.

Miles of system road

Fuels management - Changes in LUZ may reduce access to treatment areas and limit use of mechanical equipment, which may limit fuels treatments and increase the chance of damaging wildfires.

Suitable fuels management uses by LUZ

Effect on Fire Cooperators – Changes in LUZ, particularly RW allocations, may limit the role of cooperating fire agencies.

Wilderness legislation


9

February 2013

Coordination with other public planning efforts Consistency with other plans – Forest Service LMPs could affect the implementation of other agencies regional or state level plans. These include both state and federal plans for a variety of resources.

Review of applicable plans

Issues that are not relevant to the proposed action were identified and summarized in Table 3. Non-relevant issues were identified as those: 1) outside the scope of the proposed action; 2) already decided by law, regulation, Forest Plan, or other higher level decision; 3) irrelevant to the decision to be made; or 4) conjectural and not supported by scientific or factual evidence. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations explain this delineation in 40 CFR § 1501.7, “…identify and eliminate from detailed study the issues which are not significant or which have been covered by prior environmental review (40 CFR § 1506.3)…”. Table 3. Summary of Issues not Considered in the Analysis

Issue Reason why the issue is outside the scope Travel Management – Many comments noted that the Forest Service has closed and gated many roads, restricting access to the public. Other routes are closed on the motor vehicle use map. Many user created routes were also closed and the decommissioning status is unknown. Numerous commenters requested that those routes be opened as part of this amendment.

These route level decisions are made through the travel management process governed by 36 CFR 212 Subpart B or in subsequent project specific decisions implementing travel management closures. The decisions made as part of the LMP amendment will not include route level decisions, but access to the IRAs will be evaluated in the LMP amendment analysis.

IRA Boundary Issues – The IRAs were mapped over several generations of Roadless Area Review and Evaluations starting in the mid 1970s. The current IRA boundaries were established by regulation with the publication of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule in 2001. The 2001 IRAs occasionally overlap Forest Service system roads, communication sites, and other permitted facilities. Some commenters see this amendment as an opportunity to “clean up” those mapping issues.

The Roadless Area Conservation Rule defines the scope of the IRAs (36 CFR § 294.11). Although the rule suggests that updates and revisions to the IRAs are possible, no process is specified. The rule specifically prohibits changes in the scope of the rule through the Land Management Plan amendment process (36 CFR § 294.14(e)). Until the Forest Service develops additional direction, changing the IRA boundaries is outside the scope of this amendment.


10

February 2013

Issue Reason why the issue is outside the scope Wild and Scenic River suitability studies – The LMP Revision completed in 2006 evaluated the eligibility of numerous rivers throughout the planning area, but except for those study rivers identified on the Los Padres National Forest, deferred the suitability determinations of those eligible rivers. Many commenters see this current LMP amendment process as an opportunity to conduct those suitability studies.

This need to complete suitability studies was raised as an appeal issue for the LMP revision. The Appeal Reviewing Officer for the Chief upheld the decision to defer the suitability studies as consistent with agency policy. Eligible rivers are protected by the current LMP, and those management provisions will not be affected by the LMP amendment. Suitability studies (FSH 1909.12 Chapter 80) are distinctly different from wilderness evaluation (FSH 1909.12 Chapter 70), and although several of the eligible rivers overlap with the IRAs considered in this LMP amendment, many do not overlap. Including the suitability studies would expand the geographic scope and add additional issues that are outside the scope of the proposed action. Including suitability studies would take away from the focus on the identified IRAs.

Defensible space – The LMP Developed Area Interface (DAI) LUZ is designed primarily around fire and fuels management in the urban interface zone. The LMP also adopts strategies for direct community protection. One commenter suggests that research from Dr. Jack Cohen should be used to change how the Forest Service manages chaparral adjacent to structures.

The LMP fire management strategy is used to design specific fuels projects, and applies on a forest-wide basis. Fire research is best applied at the project level when specific treatments are being considered. Revising the fire management strategy on a forest-wide basis is outside the scope of this analysis.

Mountain Bike Plan – The current LMPs manage mountain bike use as one of many recreational activities. All open roads and trails outside of designated wilderness (except the Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail), are open to mountain bikes. There are no comprehensive mountain bike trail plans in place, and several commenters suggested that the LMP amendment should consider such a plan.

Forest Service policy requires that trail use be managed through the use of trail management objectives (FSM 2350) which are tied to LMP direction. Individual use plans are not required. Although a mountain bike plan is outside the scope of this analysis, the effect of LUZ allocations on mountain bike access will be considered in the LMP amendment.

Wilderness Management Plans – The four southern California national forests have many designated wilderness areas. Los Padres Forest Watch suggested the LMP amendment process should be used to develop management plans for the 10 existing wilderness areas on the Los Padres National Forest.

Wilderness planning is guided by the designating legislation, FSM 2322 and the program direction in the LMP. The purpose of this amendment is to evaluate management direction of IRAs. Preparing management plans for established wilderness is outside the scope of the IRA amendment.


11

February 2013

Issue Reason why the issue is outside the scope Energy Corridors – The Forest Service amended the LMPs in 2009 by designating several West-Wide Energy Corridors (WWEC) on the Angeles, San Bernardino and Cleveland National Forests. One commenter suggested the impacts from corridor designation should be part of the analysis.

The effects of the corridor designation were considered as part of the corridor project (see the WWEC Final Programmatic EIS). The WWEC decision was litigated, and the parties filed a Settlement Agreement on July 3, 2012 with the court to resolve the case. The settlement includes a process to review and revise the designated corridors. Any proposed changes to corridors that are based on that review would be evaluated as a separate plan amendment or revision and would be outside the scope of this analysis. This LMP amendment will consider the effects of LUZ allocations on existing corridors and potential future utility development.

Allowable uses within wilderness – Several commenters raised issues or concerns with a range of uses in designated wilderness. These included hunting, mountain bike use, and renewable energy development.

The Wilderness Act and designating legislation controls what uses are allowed within designated wilderness. Wilderness is open to hunting (as are most areas on the national forests) unless the area is subject to a general closure. Mechanized equipment for recreation use (mountain bikes) is not allowed in wilderness (other than as needed to allow for access for the disabled) nor is renewable energy development. Although allowable uses are already defined by the Wilderness Act and designating legislation, the LMP Amendment analysis will consider the effect of LUZ allocations on potential future uses consistent with existing law.

Agency Funding – Forest Service management of the national forests is subject to program priorities and funding levels established by Congress. Several commenters suggested that the analysis should consider current and future funding levels in the effects analysis.

Speculating about future funding levels is beyond the scope of any program or project analysis. However, implementation cost is an issue that can be evaluated. The analysis will consider the cost, in general terms, of implementing the various alternatives, particularly as it relates to the monitoring alternative.

Lead and Cooperating Agencies _________________________ The Forest Service is the lead federal agency for the SEIS for the Land Management Plan Amendment. Other federal agencies with jurisdiction by law may be cooperating agencies at the request of the lead agency. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service have jurisdiction over endangered species, and have agreed to be cooperating agencies for this planning effort. The Environmental Protection Agency has jurisdiction over the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, and has also agreed to participate as a cooperator. Other federal agencies, state and local governments, and tribes with special expertise related to an environmental issue may be a cooperator. The Forest Service invited federal, state,


12

February 2013

local governments and tribes to join the planning effort as cooperators. The State of California Natural Resources Agency (including the Departments of Fish and Wildlife1, Parks and Recreation, and Forestry and Fire Protection), Ventura County, and Orange County Fire Authority have agreed to participate as cooperating agencies.

Other Permits or Approvals ____________________________ LMP amendments do not authorize specific actions, and no permits or approvals are required by other agencies before the LMP amendment may be implemented.

Other Related Efforts _________________________________ There are no other plan amendments being considered at this time. The four southern California national forests are consulting with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service on the ongoing activities under the current LMPs. This consultation is part of the court ordered remedy for Center for Biological Diversity, et al vs. United States Fish and Wildlife Service et al (No. C 08-01278).

The Forest Service issues a quarterly “Schedule of Proposed Actions” (SOPA) for each forest. The SOPA Report contains a list of proposed actions that will begin or are currently undergoing environmental analysis and documentation. If a project is proposed in an IRA, the four southern California national forests list the roadless area in the project description. The SOPA is available on the web at: Forest Service SOPA

1 Formerly the Department of Fish and Game, the Department changed names on January 1, 2013

http://www.fs.fed.us/sopa/


13

February 2013

CHAPTER 2. ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION

Introduction _________________________________________ This chapter describes and compares the alternatives considered for the Southern California National Forests Land Management Plan Amendment. It includes a description of each alternative considered. Detailed maps are available in Appendix 1 and online at the Project web page. This section also presents the alternatives in comparative form, defining the differences between each alternative and providing a clear basis for choice among options by the decision maker. Some of the information used to compare the alternatives is based upon the design of the alternative (i.e., the Land Use Zone designations) and some of the information is based upon the environmental, social and economic effects of implementing each alternative (i.e., effect on wildlife habitat and watershed condition).

It is important to note that any alternative that proposes additional areas as recommended wilderness should be considered a preliminary administrative recommendation as it relates to eventual wilderness designation. If an alternative that includes recommended wilderness is adopted, the preliminary administrative recommendation will receive further review and possible modification by the Chief of the Forest Service, Secretary of Agriculture, and the President of the United States. The Congress has reserved the authority to make final decisions on wilderness designation.

Alternatives Considered in Detail ________________________ The Forest Service is proposing two independent and distinct actions for the proposed LMP amendment. The first component of the proposed amendment would change the land use zone allocations for select roadless areas on the four forests. In addition to the No Action alternative and the Proposed Action, the Forest Service has identified one additional alternative to consider in detail for this part of the amendment. The second part of the proposed amendment would modify the monitoring and evaluation requirements adopted in the LMP. The monitoring and evaluation requirements for implementation of the forest plans as required by 36 CFR 219.11(d) are typically designed around the forest plan goals, objectives, and standards in order to periodically determine and evaluate the effects of management practices. Forest Service policy does not require the analysis of alternative monitoring methods but monitoring alternatives are included in this SEIS as required by the Settlement Agreement. The Forest Service developed two monitoring alternative for consideration in detail, in addition to the No Action alternative. These LUZ and monitoring alternatives are being divided to provide clarity in the analysis and disclosure of effects. The land use zone allocations apply to a select group of roadless areas, and will affect the uses of those lands. The analysis will focus on how the resources on those lands could change under the different land use zone allocations proposed under the alternatives.

All of the monitoring and evaluation protocols apply forest wide, meet or exceed agency requirements for monitoring, and will influence the implementation of plan standards and

http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/fs-usda-pop.php?project=35130http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/fs-usda-pop.php?project=35130


14

February 2013

guidelines within all resource areas. The analysis of the monitoring and evaluation requirements will focus on how the alternative strategies affect funding, staffing and economic efficiency.

Land Use Zone Allocations Alternative 1 - No Action Under the No Action alternative, the current land use zones would be implemented for the four southern California national forests. The maps for the No Action alternative (in Appendix 1 and available online) reflect the current LUZ allocations adopted as part of the revised LMP Alternative 4a. Alternative 2 - The Proposed Action The Proposed Action responds to the Settlement Agreement by re-zoning the majority of the land use zone allocations within the IRAs listed in the Settlement Agreement to Back Country Non-Motorized (BCNM) and Recommended Wilderness (RW). The proposed action allocations are based on the wilderness evaluations for the IRAs that were updated concurrent with this analysis (Appendix 2). Two of the areas in Appendix 2 are undeveloped areas proposed by the public and evaluated for wilderness potential in the 2006 LMP revision but are not Inventoried Roadless Area per the RACR. Nevertheless, for the purpose of aiding readability of this environmental document, narrative or tables may refer to these areas collectively as IRAs. The wilderness evaluations identify the capability, suitability, and need for wilderness associated with each IRA. Based on this updated analysis, the Proposed Action land use zones were developed using the following guidelines:

• Existing RW land use zones were maintained. • Areas within the IRAs that are capable and available for wilderness in areas of high

need were allocated to RW. Capable and available areas adjacent to the settlement IRAs were also included in the RW allocation when inclusion created a more logical wilderness area boundary.

• Areas that are capable and available for wilderness in areas of low or moderate need were allocated to BCNM.

• Areas not capable or suitable for wilderness were allocated to other land use zones as follows:

o Motorized access on existing authorized roads and trails was maintained, with 100 foot buffers applied along county and forest roads, and 300 foot buffers applied along state highways. The current plan allocation for these roaded areas, which will not change as part of this amendment, is a mix of Back Country (BC) or Back Country Motorized Use Restricted (BCMUR).

o Existing Developed Area Interface (DAI) zones were maintained around structures/facilities

Documents

Draft Supplemental Agriculture Environmental Impact Statementa123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic...Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978)